3D glasses are worth no more than the $3 up charge the theater wants (Source: Panasonic)

Give us a decently priced 3D TV with passive glasses and things might take off

A
disconnect in what analysts think will happen and what actually
happens with consumers seems to be commonplace within the TV
industry. In October, DisplaySearch released
some figures that forecast the shipments of connected TVs to soar
this year. So far, according to massive electronics retailer Best
Buy, the mass adoption of expensive sets with new features simply
hasn't happened and adoption of 3D TVs is still
slow.

Reuters reports
that Best Buy CEO Brian Dunn told analysts that sales of 3D TVs has
fallen behind expectations. Dunn said, "There was confusion
about 3D early (on). It was a little short on content." A little
short is an understatement, and one of the films that could have
helped drive 3D TV adoption – Avatar
– is locked up as an exclusive
for Panasonic until 2012.

With the news of slower than
expected sales of high-end TVs, Best Buy was forced
to cut the profit forecast for the year. Frank Ingarra from
Hennessy Funds stated, "The stock got killed today."
Ingarra co-manages a find that has 32,000 shares of Best Buy stock.
The stock closed at $35.52.

TV makers still expect sales to
improve next year as more 3D content becomes available. LG's Jay
Vandenbree told Reuters,
"Just like how high-definition TV started in sports and movies,
as 3D evolves, it will go with sports and movies and then become more
of an everyday thing."

Some also point out that 3D
content that is poorly produced is also making some watchers queasy.
Google's Google TV offerings are also not doing as well as expected
on the market. The main reason for this is the fact that most of the
major video streaming services and networks
blocked Google TV devices from accessing and streaming content
from sites like Hulu, Fox, and others effectively
killing the benefits of paying more for Google TV.

Perhaps
even more telling though is a statement from Ross Rubin, analyst at
NPD. Rubin said, "People can also buy lower-priced alternatives
to connected TVs, be it video game players, Blu-ray players or Apple
TV."

Consumers aren’t stupid; many are familiar with 3D
from the theater and most understand the benefits of 3D in the home.
What many consumers simply won't get behind are sets that are
overpriced and then require active glasses that cost $200/pair or
more adding an extra $800 or more to the cost of going 3D for a
family of four.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So true and very overlooked. A ton of people have the TV on and "watch" while writing a paper during commercials or reading the online sites such as this one.

Another overlooked aspect is the economy. Unemployment is at record levels and many people are in fear of the uncertain future. They are not going to plop down the needed money on one of these sets with things as upside down as they are now. Plus, right now you can get a Panasonic 42" 3D Plasma for $1100, then you need a 3D player or at least some glasses for viewing 3D content. So you figure $160 for a decent 3D Blu-Ray player and about $280 for the 3D starter kit *roll eyes* which comes with only 2 pairs of glasses and a pretty craptastic movie called Avatar. Then each additional set of glasses is $108 a piece. So lets say a family of 4. You need the TV, the player, the starter kit, and 2 additional pairs of glasses. Grand total of $1756 before shipping and any applicable sales tax. Then you get to watch 1 movie and maybe 1 channel on TV with some 3D content. That price doesn't even include a 3D compatable receiver for surround sound that can pass the 3D signal through HDMI to the TV.

By contrast a 58" 1080p Plasma without 3D is $1100 and you use all your current equipment to watch HD content. No starter kits etc. Most people I know would opt for the bigger set and skip the 3D.